IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502041.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

  • Edward J. Lusk

    (Social System Sciences, University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

This paper describes a five-step procedure for meta-analysis. Especially important was the contacting of authors of prior papers. This was done primarily to improve the accuracy of the coding; it also helped to identify unpublished research and to supply missing information. Application of the five-step procedure to the issue of return postage in mail surveys yielded significantly more papers and produced more definitive conclusions than those derived from traditional reviews. This meta-analysis indicated that business reply postage is seldom costeffective because first class postage yields an additional 9% return. Business reply rates were lower than for other first class postage in each of the 20 comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong & Edward J. Lusk, 2005. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," General Economics and Teaching 0502041, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502041
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502041.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peterson, Robert A., 1975. "An experimental investigation of mail-survey responses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 199-210, July.
    2. J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
    3. Kerin, Roger A. & Harvey, Michael G., 1976. "Methodological considerations in corporate mail surveys: A research note," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 277-281, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Armstrong, J. Scott, 1996. "Heuristics, biases and improvement strategies in judgmental time series : P. Goodwin and G. Wright, 1994, Omega, 22, 553-568," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 319-321, June.
    2. Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
    3. Ribisl, Kurt M. & Walton, Maureen A. & Mowbray, Carol T. & Luke, Douglas A. & Davidson, William S. & Bootsmiller, Bonnie J., 1996. "Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review and recommendations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, February.
    4. Susan I. Woodruff & Christine C. Edwards & Terry L. Conway, 1998. "Enhancing Response Rates To a Smoking Survey for Enlisted U.S. Navy Women," Evaluation Review, , vol. 22(6), pages 780-791, December.
    5. Irena BA?LIJA, 2013. "Reconceptualisation Of Urban Management: Evidence From Eu Cities," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(1), pages 30-50, February.
    6. McMillan, Brian & Green, Josephine M. & Woolridge, Michael W. & Dyson, Lisa & Renfrew, Mary J. & Clarke, Graham P., 2009. "Studying the infant feeding intentions of pregnant women experiencing material deprivation: Methodology of the Looking at Infant Feeding Today (LIFT) study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 845-849, March.
    7. Urquhart, Julie & Courtney, Paul, 2011. "Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 535-544, September.
    8. Armstrong, J. Scott, 1990. "Class of Mail Does Affect Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: Evidence from Meta-analysis," MPRA Paper 81692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Class of Mail Does Affect Response Rates to Mailed," General Economics and Teaching 0502039, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stocké, Volker & Becker, Birgit, 2004. "Determinanten und Konsequenzen der Umfrageeinstellung : Bewertungsdimensionen unterschiedlicher Umfragesponsoren und die Antwortbereitschaft der Befragten," Papers 04-17, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Webster, Cynthia, 1997. "Effects of researcher presence and appeal on response quality in hand-delivered, self-administered surveys," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 105-114, February.
    4. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    5. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Strategies for Implementing Change: An Experiential Approach," General Economics and Teaching 0412026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Woodside, Arch G. & Sharma, Manish, 2017. "Case-based modeling of prolific liars and constant truth-tellers: Who are the dishonesty and honesty self-reporters?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 142-153.
    7. Stocké, Volker & Becker, Birgit, 2004. "DETERMINANTEN UND KONSEQUENZEN DER UMFRAGEEINSTELLUNG. Bewertungsdimensionen unterschiedlicher Umfragesponsoren und die Antwortbereitschaft der Befragten," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-17, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    8. Vernuccio, Maria & Ceccotti, Federica, 2015. "Strategic and organisational challenges in the integrated marketing communication paradigm shift: A holistic vision," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 438-449.
    9. Stocké, Volker & Langfeldt, Bettina, 2003. "Umfrageeinstellung und Umfrageerfahrung : die relative Bedeutung unterschiedlicher Aspekte der Interviewerfahrung für die generalisierte Umfrageeinstellung," Papers 03-34, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    10. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    11. Calvo, Thomas & Razafindrakoto, Mireille & Roubaud, François, 2019. "Fear of the state in governance surveys? Empirical evidence from African countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    12. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    13. Stocké, Volker & Langfeldt, Bettina, 2003. "Umfrageeinstellung und Umfrageerfahrung. Die relative Bedeutung unterschiedlicher Aspekte der Interviewerfahrung für die generalisierte Umfrageeinstellung," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 03-34, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    14. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
    16. JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    surveys; meta-analysis; return postage;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502041. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.